Commander
A son of God.
You may like this site, and then again you may not: http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch06a.htm
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You may like this site, and then again you may not: http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch06a.htmAnswers in Genesis is neither a valid nor reliable source. I was thinking more of a research article, but I'll go on and post my rebuttle anyway. I'm not an expert in geology, so I'm working with what I know.
1) "Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents"
This is because the plates of Earth have shifted overtime and where there may be mountains or a desert now was at one time an ocean. Continents haven't necessarily "sunk" as the article has suggested, but have merely moved around, occasionally separating and colliding.
2) Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals
There have been numerous mass extinctions throughout the history of the Earth. These fossils are found at layers that coincide with said extinctions, not just a few thousand years ago.
3) Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas and 4 "Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances"
Pangia, shifting continents, and also there's really not that many different kinds of rocks.
4) Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata
It's called being crushed by other layers of rock, and not being exposed to the environment. Weathering only occurs on the surface where it exposed to the factors that contribute to eroding. Also, the layers are not as obviously defined as the article seems to be intending, and if you ever actually looked at the grand canyons, it's edges are rough from because exposed to the elements.
5) "Evidence 6: Rapid or no erosion between strata"
Again, that rock was the bottom of the ocean before the plates of the Earth shifted.
You may like this site, and then again you may not: http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch06a.htm
* Starting with the garbled YEC story of Adam and Eve, the earth isn't 6,000 years young.Let me peek into your mind just a bit on some of your common sense. What and why on a few examples of the OT do you think are not what it clearly says?
The theory of evolution?
Theory-a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Science-the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Fact-a thing that is indisputably the case.
Evidence- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Where scientist at the beginning? So, they could intelligently and systematically study through observation the age of the earth, and did they repeat this, and it showed the same each time? No, according to evolutionary scientist the age of the universe has went from 12(something) billion(when I was in college in 1984), to over 15 billion in 1989, to today(2016) where it is at 13.82 billion for the universe. The earth when I was in college was at 2.(something) billion to today it is at 4.53 billion years.
Fact is a thing that is indisputable. Evolution is not a fact, but fallacy of those who want you to believe in their lie(for they also have been lied to). The evidence of the theory of evolution is not true or valid.
Yes, quite insightful. An excellent example of the distortion and misrepresentation of mainstream scientific literature presenting absolutely zero original data or research to back their fabricated claims.Very insightful
Says who?Answers in Genesis is neither a valid nor reliable source.
No, people with scientific backgrounds that can easily see their misrepresentations of actual science and the fact that they present absolutely no credible science of their own to back anything they say.Says who?
Naturalists?
That works both ways obviously.No, people with scientific backgrounds that can easily see their misrepresentations of actual science and the fact that they present absolutely no credible science of their own to back anything they say.
Tell you what Hieronymus, you go to that site, pick out one of their claims pertaining to the earth sciences (geology, oceanography, climatology), provide a link and I will point out the problems with it, of which the greatest one without even looking is going to be the lack of any original data or research to support their position. I await your link.That works both ways obviously.
So the answer is actually: Yes, naturalists.
Naturalists believe what we're fed by the world under the guise of science and rationality, super-naturalists (in this case creationists) believe in the Word of God.
Both have the same evidence to work with, although it should be well known by now that naturalists have produced many pieces of ambiguous or even false evidence.
Of course both parties also make mistakes.
Clearly the global flood was a supernatural event under God's direct control, so you don't need to worry about trying to come up with possible non-supernatural explanations. Just accept that it was so. The same applies to the parting of the Red Sea or when Jesus walked on water/turned water into wine/raised the dead, etc. Do you need to worry about finding a non-supernatural explanation for those events? Of course not.The Great flood could have been caused by the passage of a massive body which shifted the Earth's orbit farther away from the Sun.
You've missed the obvious - the water is still here for all to see! Just travel to the coast and look out from the sea shore and there you'll find it - trillions of gallons of it. When God raised up the land masses after the great flood and reshaped the entire face of the earth, the water that was previously covering the whole planet to a depth of about a mile simply drained back into the lower parts of the earth's surface and formed the oceans and places like the Grand Canyon in the process.Where did all the water went?? Some went to the clouds due to the reduced temperatures, some went to polar ice caps which did not exist before, some went back to the rocks as the Earth's interior cooled due to greater distance from the Sun, and finally, the rest was leaked into space through a tail/stream of water vapor caused by the passage of a massive body.
I've heard it said by those who know a lot more about these things than I could ever hope to know, that even if the universe were as old as currently claimed, it would still be nowhere near old enough for life to have even got started on its own, let alone evolve into all the different kinds we see today. If life can't even get started, then there's not even a reason to postulate evolution, cause it ain't gonna happen. So whichever way you look at it, be it cosmological, biological or whatever, none of it makes any sense. Where does that leave us? It sounds very much like "In the beginning God..." to me. Glory be to God, our all-powerful, all-knowing Lord - the one who created all things, visible and invisible and who created man in his image, not from some mythical ape-like creature.The theory of evolution?
Theory-a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Science-the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Fact-a thing that is indisputably the case.
Evidence- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Where scientist at the beginning? So, they could intelligently and systematically study through observation the age of the earth, and did they repeat this, and it showed the same each time? No, according to evolutionary scientist the age of the universe has went from 12(something) billion(when I was in college in 1984), to over 15 billion in 1989, to today(2016) where it is at 13.82 billion for the universe. The earth when I was in college was at 2.(something) billion to today it is at 4.53 billion years.
Fact is a thing that is indisputable. Evolution is not a fact, but fallacy of those who want you to believe in their lie(for they also have been lied to). The evidence of the theory of evolution is not true or valid.
Why would you doubt the age of the universe and earth as shown by the scientific community?I've heard it said by those who know a lot more about these things than I could ever hope to know, that even if the universe were as old as currently claimed, it would still be nowhere near old enough for life to have even got started on its own, let alone evolve into all the different kinds we see today. If life can't even get started, then there's not even a reason to postulate evolution, cause it ain't gonna happen. So whichever way you look at it, be it cosmological, biological or whatever, none of it makes any sense.
The notion that Cain must have married his sister comes from the Book of Jubilees, which was very popular in early Christian times, but only made it into the Canon of the Ethiopian church.Adam and Eve were the first people on earth they then they had and cain and abel which makes there just only 4 people on the earth.
Cain then grows up and gets himself a wife. this is where the creation story falls apart once again. Logically she had to be an unmentioned daughter of Adam and Eve. Trouble with this is that's its incest which will lead to serious genetic problems with future off spring.
Conclusion Adam and Eve were not the only people on the earth.
I've heard it said by those who know a lot more about these things than I could ever hope to know, that even if the universe were as old as currently claimed, it would still be nowhere near old enough for life to have even got started on its own, let alone evolve into all the different kinds we see today. If life can't even get started, then there's not even a reason to postulate evolution, cause it ain't gonna happen. So whichever way you look at it, be it cosmological, biological or whatever, none of it makes any sense. Where does that leave us? It sounds very much like "In the beginning God..." to me. Glory be to God, our all-powerful, all-knowing Lord - the one who created all things, visible and invisible and who created man in his image, not from some mythical ape-like creature.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?